Forums

I'm curious about why the number of dice rolled when attacking isn't determined by how many figures are still in the unit.

For example, an infantry unit with 4 figures usually attacks with 3, 2 or 1 die. When there is only 1 figure they still roll 3, 2 or 1 die.

This doesn't seem right. When a unit is weakened then it should have less firepower.

Thought? Educate me as I'm sure this was very carefully thought through.

I saw someone suggest the foll;owing. Thoughts?

------

INFANTRY units roll 1 die per figure in the unit, modified by terrain and card effects per the
standard game.

ARMOR units roll 1 die per figure when battling other armor units, but roll 1 additional die against infantry or artillery units. Total dice may be modified by terrain and card effects per
the standard game.

There are plenty of discussions about this in these forums as well as the ones at BGG -- as this is one of the most commonly criticized aspects of the game.

My two cents -- in spite of the presence of figures and terrain, M'44 is still abstract in the details. The way i look at it, losing figures is more a symbol of morale than actually losing men. So the firing power will stay the same, until their morale breaks (the last figure is removed) as which point the unit is completely ineffective. They've been cut off from supporting units, lost communications, lost enough leaders to not fire effectively, etc... All the little details like supply and ammo come into play, but are not specifically covered in the rules.

Another thing about the game that I look at in this manner is when there is no action on a given flank. It seems to the player that nothing is happening over there and that the units are just not firing. I look at that this way -- the units are firing at each other, it's just that no advantage has been gained one way or the other, so no figures have been removed. It is only the bigger gains that are measured in M'44.

I hope that I've made my thoughts clear -- sometimes forums don't work as well as actual discussions for me.

I seriously find that critique silly. In a world where "Hit Points" are accepted without questions in most games about combat (Computer, Board Games or good old roleplaying), suddenly when it is applied to a miniature game people don't get it... You should see the cries of RAGE if all the World of Warcraft characters suddenly diminished in power with each hit.
And who ever thought that each unit in Mem44 represents four actual soldiers?

That said - you could design C&C with units where the figures represent actual firepower.... oh wait - C&C Napoleonics!

I seriously find that critique silly. In a world where "Hit Points" are accepted without questions in most games about combat (Computer, Board Games or good old roleplaying), suddenly when it is applied to a miniature game people don't get it... You should see the cries of RAGE if all the World of Warcraft characters suddenly diminished in power with each hit.
And who ever thought that each unit in Mem44 represents four actual soldiers?

That said - you could design C&C with units where the figures represent actual firepower.... oh wait - C&C Napoleonics!

Of course the simplest answer is: Because it's a game, and those are the rules.

The simplest answer is that this is an easy to play board game. It is not necessarily a war game, although that is the theme. You can think of it this way, each unit does not represent a squad of soldiers, tanks, or arty as in TOI. Each could be a whole company, battalion, or army. They don't all fire at the same time do they? So while casualties are taken, the other soldiers fire and therefore the damage is the same. Now, under this explanation, eventually the damage potential would be less, again this is an abstract system for easy play. My best friend is mad at DoW for increasing the rules complexity with the additions of Winter Wars and the campaign book with it's SWA's. But the beauty of this system is that you can, if you want, only play the basic rules of the base game.

50th
you hit a point there. with the addition of additional and advanced scenarios, obviously the rules are going to increase. If the rules keep getting larger and larger soon Memoir will be equal to squad leader. We already have several books that have additional and additional rules. I love it that it is an easy to play board game that has a World War II theme. I also know that there must be advancements to keep the interest up and to keep customers purchasing the product. I like the idea of house rules but once again, more and more. before long, unless you play several times a week, we will be looking at help pages more than actually playing the game, which I love to play.

The way I look at it is that the play-testers and gurus at DOW have worked on the best way for the game to go and I have faith that they know what they are doing. I am pleased with the game that they have created. It has filled a void in war gaming that I feel has been missing for years.

DOW keep it up. The only thing I ask is do not muddy the water with too many rules.

In the Napoleonic period, the firepower of an infantry unit was determined by bringing massed musketry to bear on an enemy unit. The more men you lost, the fewer muskets still firing.

The diversity of WWII arms is much greater- suppose an infantry unit is a platoon or two of men, you might have wiped out half the figures, but chances are even if the machine gunner is down, someone will have taken over. So long as there are two men to fire and load, the MG will keep firing, and how much difference is the depletion in rifles really going to make? - particularly with a system this abstract.

50th
you hit a point there. with the addition of additional and advanced scenarios, obviously the rules are going to increase. If the rules keep getting larger and larger soon Memoir will be equal to squad leader. We already have several books that have additional and additional rules. I love it that it is an easy to play board game that has a World War II theme. I also know that there must be advancements to keep the interest up and to keep customers purchasing the product. I like the idea of house rules but once again, more and more. before long, unless you play several times a week, we will be looking at help pages more than actually playing the game, which I love to play.

The way I look at it is that the play-testers and gurus at DOW have worked on the best way for the game to go and I have faith that they know what they are doing. I am pleased with the game that they have created. It has filled a void in war gaming that I feel has been missing for years.

DOW keep it up. The only thing I ask is do not muddy the water with too many rules. trumpetman52

I agree with all of the above. I've never wargamed WW2 because rules for aircraft, off-table artillery and armour thickness put me off. I love the simplicity of M'44 and the resulting fun element. It's fantastic that you can play a Normandy, Desert or jungle scenario with each giving a different theatre feel.

So I'm looking for no more rules, but more application through Overlord and Breakthrough scenarios and a new Campaign book.

A friend of mine with who we just played for the first time made me the same question.

As a newbi, the way I see it is, your four figure unit has the same firepower beeing a whole, or as a part. But getting a hit will reduce your chance for survival and increas the chance for a enemy victory point. In short, the weaker you are, the more exposed you are and chances to survive will lower, waile your enemy has more chances to gather victory points.

Actualy, you dont know what firepower they are using, so a figure count in that scence makes no scences either, as I see it.

If you close combat all your units, you have alot of chances of getting hits, again the more you lose the easier it is for your enemy to win.

As someone stated, lost of coms, moral, weaker, surplus, the effect is the same. I think the system works fine this way. Iam glad they brought up a board wargame like this, it could be easy or complicated if wanted, which I think is great. Other wargames I looked at in the past where or are deep in tables, variants and docs that had you reading for some nights! So thanks DOW!

I'm curious about why the number of dice rolled when attacking isn't determined by how many figures are still in the unit.

You can say that the number of figures doesn't really seem a manpower or firepower but the number of steps to disorder the unit.
Just think you can't terminate all soldiers (what almost always happen on real battlefield). This is not a slaughter game!

Instead you can send stright hits to oponnent's morale. And when the fourth morale point (ie. infantry) is taken off the board, you can say: "OK! I sent your people to the back, disarmed, without the will to fight. I wont count them as unit from now. And I'm taking a medal for that!"

Suppose someone attacks you with a full-strength unit and depletes your unit. Under the official rules your unit can fire back next turn on an equal footing. But if firepower depended on remaining figures, your unit would be at a disadvantage due to its losses.

Also, as others have said, it doesn't make sense to think of each figure representing a certain number of men, and the loss of the last figure representing the death of every soldier in the unit. In real life, 50% casualties would render a unit totally demoralised and disordered... eliminated, in other words.